Quote:I dont disagree that he is fast. However, if you werent trying to hurt your opponent, as he obviously wasnt, then you would be faster right? Since you werent trying to deliver any power? Videos like these are gimmicks. He had speed. He had proper technique for a Wing Chun guy, but add resistance and power to it and it looks much different. Just my opinion though. Anyone else?

I do agree if hr added more power, he'd lose some of the speed. I also noticed that hes attacking to the neck area, and my general thought on power is "How much do you need when striking the neck?"

Not much but thats where the resistance part comes in. Remember that an opponent isnt going to stand still with his hands down like in the demonstration. He has his guard up. He is going to move to defend and to launch his own attack on you. On top of all that you have to contend with the adrenal dump that has been placed upon you in response to the present danger. This often leads to less than precise hands and thats something you need when striking to a resisting opponent. You must be fast and accurate and under pressure it just isnt a high percentage move.

_________________________
"When I let Go of who I am, I become who I might be." Lao Tzu

Quote:Not much but thats where the resistance part comes in. Remember that an opponent isnt going to stand still with his hands down like in the demonstration. He has his guard up. He is going to move to defend and to launch his own attack on you. On top of all that you have to contend with the adrenal dump that has been placed upon you in response to the present danger. This often leads to less than precise hands and thats something you need when striking to a resisting opponent. You must be fast and accurate and under pressure it just isnt a high percentage move.

Unfortunately Bruce, and his successors turned the one inch punch into a gimmick. First of all this type of energy has existed since IMA has been around, and second of all Bruce's display of it was elementary at best. Too much time, windup, and "externalism" in it. All it did was push the guy back, and had maybe a subtle internal effect.

There are guys out there who can do the same, with little to no movement, and instead of pushing you back, drop you on the spot.

Bruce was famous for things like this, because of how generally ignorant the Western crowd (even other oriental martial artists) were to this sort of thing. But in China, this kind of thing has existed for centuries. It was like "ooooh aaaah"

I realize that this post is three years old and that i probably won't receive a reply; however, I am quite passionate about the realness, use, and application of the short distance punching in the manner that Bruce Lee pioneered.

I have always cringed at the nay-sayers regarding the 'one-inch punch'. It is in fact very real, and it is much more than a 'push'. Yes, it came from Gung-Fu originally, just as everything Bruce did came from some form or style. That is the point and meaning of Jeet Kune Do; to take whatever you can from any style and make it your own. Bruce himself said "reject "forms" take what is useful to you; discard the rest". Did he learn a variation of this technique while studying Gung-Fu? Yes; However, what was unique was the twist he put on it. He modified it, as he did with everything else, to make it his own and therefore better (for him at least). It does have pracital application as well. Imagine the possibilties of being able to hit an attacker with your full force from little to no distance! That holds too many possibilities to even discuss. Finally, here is some physical evidence against those who say that it is merely a push:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx9iPFMriz0This is a link to a poorly made but poignant documentary regarding the one inch punch. I put it here simply for the demonstration of the ability to break boards unsing a short-distnaced punch. Clearly not a push!

_________________________
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies simply because they become fashions."- G.K. Chesterton

So many different opinions just by observing a single demo done decades ago. To me the one inch punch is more like a bicep hit. It's done to momentarily stun your opponent. The demo Bruce Lee was to show how much power the one inch punch can generate, although in practical use, it is merely a stunning move. The one inch punch does not have knock out power, but it does have the kind of power to distract an opponent while jerking him back slightly, enough space so you can launch your real attacks.

If you want a good description I suggest you look into Dan Inosanto's Definitive Collection of Jeet kune Do and Filipino martial arts. He goes over the 1 inch punch there, and who better than him interpret Bruce's teachings?

For those of you who think Bruce's version of the punch was to knock someone out. Plese consider the fact that Bruce Lee considered all ranges of fighting. understanding that his wing chun lost effectiveness once the opponenet was out of range, he incorporated boxing, because boxing was a sport, he incorporated muay thai because of the intesity they practiced with.

1 inch punch jerks your back a little, giving you range to throw a power punch. What good would the 1 inch punch do if it knocked your opponent on their behinds? The punch may have the power to knock them down...possibly. but it could not knock them out. Therefore Bruce used the punch to gain space between him and his target. In order to deliver a power shot.

I don't think I ever claimed that the one inch punch could result in a knockout. My reply was more to those claiming that it was merely a 'push', I believe. I agree that it is mostly a stun move. Honestly, how many attcks do we have that are 'knockout' moves in reality. I just wanted to comment more to those saying that it was merely a push. To say to those, no it is much much more. It is a way of generating power from little to no distance. And, a very storng technique to have in your arsenal because of this. Much love everybody. More thoughts on this controversial issue?

_________________________
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies simply because they become fashions."- G.K. Chesterton